The fundamental insanity in the trial of the alleged Aurora theater shooter is that it’s taking place at all. In order to seek the death penalty, the district attorney rejected a guilty plea in exchange for a sentence of life imprisonment without parole.

Instead of being sent directly to prison, the defendant will be in the news for years. This futile attempt to seek “closure” will ensure notoriety, keep wounds open and encourage copycats. We are all losers in this trial.

Michael Carney, Centennial

This letter was published in the Feb. 26 edition.

All acts of premeditated violence against innocents are by definition insane. An independently functioning perpetrator, mentally capable of premeditation, is in all cases responsible for their acts, with no exception.

Our feelings about inflicting the death penalty should not be a factor in deciding the sentencing. Only the perpetrator’s feelings and willingness on inflicting the death penalty on others should rule its application to him.

Edward C. Krug, Lakewood

This letter was published in the Feb. 26 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here[2]. Follow eLetters[3] on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

“The fundamental insanity in the trial of the alleged Aurora theater
shooter is that it’s taking place at all. In order to seek the death
penalty, the district attorney rejected a guilty plea in exchange for a
sentence of life imprisonment without parole.”
=============
Some people might very well agree that it is not the Aurora Theater Shooter’s……mental competence…..that is really at issue……but the DA’s…….for not simply taking what the Chuckie Cheese Killer may end up getting……..because of “liberals” who are “anti-death penalty” but “pro-abortion”……and simply saved everyone a lot of time and money.

#2 Comment By Hankalish On February 25, 2014 @ 6:16 pm

I fully agree with Mr. Carney…well said!

#3 Comment By peterpi On February 25, 2014 @ 6:19 pm

Agreed.

#4 Comment By peterpi On February 25, 2014 @ 6:20 pm

You should have stopped after “but the DA’s”
If a chicken crosses the road — and is run over by a car bearing a “Hillary!” sticker, is that also evidence of the iniquity of “pro-abortion liberals”?

I positively loathe this sentiment.
No, they are not, Mr. Carney. When a drug lord orders a “lieutenant” to shoot up an informant’s house, killing the family inside, the drug lord is acting on a rational purpose: Ending leaks. When a bank robber’s mask slips, and the robber shoots a passer-by, the robber is doing so for rational reasons: Preventing identification.
We may find the reason revolting, disgusting, horrendous, and the law says it’s illegal, but it is not an insane act.
The DA, for various and sundry reasons, has chosen to not accept a plea, and is taking Mr. Holmes to trial. The DA apparently believes Mr. Holmes acted in a legally sane fashion. At least officially, the DA does. Otherwise, the DA could be held liable for misfeasance of office. The defense disagrees, and wishes to argue that Holmes was legally insane.
Hence a trial. A trial that Holmes is entitled to. Because whether Holmes was mentally capable of premeditation (your own phrase, Mr. Krug) is the issue.
When we decide that the Holmes’ of the world deserve summary justice, what’s to prevent the authorities from determining you are a potential Holmes, Mr. Krug? Or myself? Or the DA in this case — after he is no longer the DA?

All acts of premeditated violence against innocents are by definition insane.

No. They are not.

That is what they are scaring you into believing telling you in order to prevent laws that lower gun manufacturer profits from being passed.

HTH.

Best,

D

#8 Comment By kelcy On February 26, 2014 @ 1:40 pm

I suspect that this trial is a disaster in the making. The DA foolishly turned down a guilty plea in order to seek the death penalty (guess he thinks it will look good on his resume). That they are asking for a second psych eval because the first one was “incomplete” leads me to believe that the first one came back with answer he did not like…… that Holmes was legally insane at the time of the murders. So what could end up happening is Holmes goes to trial, is found to have been legally insane and ends up in a mental hospital until deemed to no longer be a hazard to himself or society. That could be 50 yrs, 10 yrs or even 1 yr. He could end up back on the streets where he may or may not continue to take his meds. No matter what the DA wants that first finding is not going to go away. The defense will present it and weeks of argument will ensue in front of the jury about what that all means. It should plant doubt in the juries mind and if they are taking their jobs seriously…… well you can see where this all leads.

#9 Comment By primafacie On February 26, 2014 @ 3:01 pm

Insane or not, don’t bet a nickel that James Holmes ever sees the light of day. Even with a successful insanity verdict, he doesn’t get a free pass.

#10 Comment By Dano2 On February 26, 2014 @ 3:28 pm

Agreed. Only a microscopic chance he sees the light of day, and if somehow that happens, he won’t see the light of the next day.

Best,

D

#11 Comment By toohip On February 26, 2014 @ 4:10 pm

Well, I guess we have to stir the pot, with this “not guilty due to insanity” plea (like it’s never been used before!). First of all if Holmes were to be found not guilty due to insanity, he would no longer be “in the news,” he’d be in the state mental hospital, and any suggestions he’d have it easy is just fodder to feed the angry mob. Second, there is no way Holmes will even be “evaluated” as being insane. We haven’t heard the result of the last evaluation, and a second evaluation is going to have the same conclusion that “good guy” with legally-acquired AR-15, with 100 round magazine, SWAT-style 12 gauge, and 6,000 rounds of ammo, and PhD candidate in Neuroscience who also left a technically clever booby trapped apt will be found insane. Then the people can get their pound of flesh.

#12 Comment By toohip On February 26, 2014 @ 4:19 pm

I agree with hyou about the DA’s foolishness, and his agenda of making his resume look good with this conviction. But show me ANY person convicted of murder, especially a “mass” murder who was found not guilty by means of insanity. . who was released on the streets in “1 yr, 10 yrs, or 50 yrs?” Please share these factual examples that drive this allegation. John Hinkly never killed anyone, but got notoriety for trying to assassinate the President, found not guilty by reason of insanity, and he’s still in a mental hospital. I want to see all these dozens of examples to float this outrage that people deemed too insane to be deemed guilty of killing multiple people. I’m sure there are some rare examples that don’t rise to the level of a mass murderer being released, but that’s not a trend or a policy.

#13 Comment By toohip On February 26, 2014 @ 4:21 pm

I believe it takes a judge, or “the” judge to accept the recommendation of a psychiatric board that a murderer, who the experts say is not longer a danger to himself or others, can be released on to the streets. Who would want to be that judge? Never happen.

#14 Comment By toohip On February 26, 2014 @ 4:29 pm

What I “love” /sar/ about this argument, is the hypocrisy of the gun-right. They constantly point to the “people kill people” and are now pressing the blame on mentally ill people or people with mental issues as the blame, . . but if you ask them why not have a mental health background check to stop these mass murders. . they’ll refuse. The truth is, the facts show. . virtually every one of the recent hundreds of mass murders. . were legally sane. Studies show the driving force behind most mass murders is simple anger. Then they go obtain easy to acquire weaponry of legal mass killing.

#15 Comment By toohip On February 26, 2014 @ 4:36 pm

This allegation that all premeditated violence . .is defined as insane, is just a deflection by the right to not have to deal with the issue of firearms, and embrace the “we vs them” notion that the right loves to divide the country on.

And example of a legally sane mass murders is Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 teenagers, found sane by the Oslo courts and sentenced to the maximum sentence of 21 years. (who’s insane now?)

#16 Comment By peterpi On February 26, 2014 @ 5:09 pm

There’s theory, then there’s reality.
kelcy is right: If Holmes is found not guilty by reason of insanity, then, as kelcy said, in theory, the moment the psych doctors determine he is no longer a danger to himself or to society, he has to be released.
Now, the reality is:
To use John Hinckley as an example, his psychiatric team could determine today that Hinckley is mentally OK, that he’s not going to harm anyone and propose that he’s released under supervision. But! You and I both know that the Secret Service would object vehemently, various politicians (not just conservative ones) would raise a hoot and a holler, and the pyschiatric team knows this. The last thing they would want is for Hinckley to take shots at a different president. So Hinckley isn’t going anywhere. He’ll be allowed out for highly supervised visits, but that’s it.
The same will probably happen with Holmes.
All this could have been avoided in the Holmes case had the DA accepted a plea bargain of life in prison.

#17 Comment By Phil On February 26, 2014 @ 5:46 pm

I am not a legal expert so I do not know the answer to this question… but let us suppose the DA accepted the guilty plea, could Holmes’ lawyers later claim that Holmes wasn’t competent enough to make that plea thus Holmes gets released from prison?

I personally think it is better to make sure all the T’s are crossed and the I’s dotted so when Holmes is convicted and sent to prison, there is no chance he could be released due to any loop hole in the system. And if this means a lengthy drawn out trial, so be it.